How should we open a game of chess? Here's an opening
repertoire from Chess Openings for Juniors,
suitable for juniors and presumably Minor/Intermediate
players:

Main opening: Main line Giuoco Piano
with 4. c3Two Knights' Defence: Max LangeFrench Defence: Classical, & Alekhin Gambit
against WinawerSicilian Defence: Morra GambitCaro-Kann Defence: Main lines with 3.Nc3Pirc Defence: Pseudo-Samisch 4. f3Black against King's Gambit: Accepted, Modern
defence 3...d5Black against Ruy Lopez: Open Morphy Defence with
9...Bc5Black against GP: Main Line Two Knights' Defence
with 6...Na5Black against 1.d4: Cambridge Springs DefenceBlack against hypermodern: London system

I played pretty much strictly from this repertoire for a
while and would recommend it to anybody. It aims at open games
emphasising piece play, perhaps with a view to tactics and
attacking play, but as we all know "tactics flow from a
superior position" (Fischer). [If you don't have this book
I have expanded on some similar opening suggestions for Whitesystems and
BlackDefences, including playing against 1.d4.]

Another opening repertoire aimed at club players is
offered by Nigel Davies in his Dirty Tricks
video:

Main opening: pick a 19th century gambit
like the King's or DanishFrench Defence: Wing GambitSicilian Defence: Deferred Wing GambitCaro-Kann Defence: Two Knights' VariationPirc Defence: System with Bc4Black against Ruy Lopez: Modern Steinitz Variation
with ...Bg4, Exchange Variation with ...Bg4, Bird's Defence, or
maybe even the Nimzovitch Defence with 1...Nc6Black against 1.d4: Tchigorin DefenceBlack against hypermodern: London system

Lastly, there are two editions of 'An opening repertoire for the
attacking club player' by Keene and Levy, and a book of the same
name by Gufeld.

Keene/Levy I

Keene/Levy II

Gufeld

Main opening

Scotch Gambit

Scotch Game

Vienna Game

French Defence

Winawer 4. a3
Steinitz 4. e5

Advance, 5. Be3

Advance, 6. Be2

Sicilian Defence

Alapin Variation

Alapin Variation

Grand Prix Attack

Caro-Kann Defence

Panov/Gunderam

Advance

Advance

Pirc Defence

Byrne system

Byrne system

Austrian Attack

Black against 1. e4

Pirc Defence

Scandinavian

Sicilian Dragon

Black against 1.d4

Benko Gambit

Tchigorin Defence

Leningrad Dutch

Black against hypermodern

Dutch systems

English: Dutch; Reti: ...d6/...Bg4

Dutch systems

To summarise: all offer a mix of systems with a common theme -
open, aggressive play. Why are we recommended to play like this?

"A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of
positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess
history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the
young chess player. A beginner should avoid Queen's Gambit and
French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as
many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated
by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game." -- RICHARD
RETI

- and, I might add, it's a lot more fun! The trouble with
playing stodgy stuff is you can get stuck and bored and lose
through losing patience, or perhaps you will never understand why
you lose.

Tom: "I always play gambits!"

Dave: "Good for you! We might run through a few
afterwards. You don't have to play a gambit to get an open game,
and there can be other problems. When we look at the Sicilian
later, I'll say some more about this."

So much for the books. How do people actually play, and how do they
fare? (This survey has two points: firstly to see what's there, but
also to model an approach to looking at your own games.) I looked
at 253 games from East Devon 1995 (Minor & Intermediate
sections), and found:

These e-mail games also feature B and D prominently,
although I got more Cs here than in the East Devon sample. So, we
have very much the same pattern of openings, which despite the 25%
of open games, we are flying pretty much against what Reti
recommends for beginners.

So, just when are you good enough to stop playing open
games? Minor? Intermediate? I think the answer is, when you
are getting bored with them.

Ray:"Too right! I got bored playing the same old
positions in the Moller and Max Lange against the same players each
season, and so these days I like to play slow systems like Bird's
Opening."

Dave: "Fine! Ray, we know you can attack when you
want to or when you need to, as I remember you winning in about 20
moves with a double piece sacrifice in the Jamboree in September.
To coin a phrase, you've served your apprenticeship in the open
games, and can move on. But there is a lot of scope for exploration
in the old Italian Game; Evans Gambit is far from played out. There
are at least three good systems for Black in reply to 4. Ng5 in the
Two Knights (Traxler/Wilkes Barre, Ulvestad/Fritz and the main line
gambit), and two good replies in the Max Lange. And if anyone is
bored like Ray, remember, you can move on to other open games which
means you can hang on to a lot of your repertoire. Play the Scotch,
or the Scotch Gambit, or the Ruy Lopez. "

Alan: "I've been doing very well with the Goring
Gambit this season"

Dave: "I have a problem with the Goring, because I
think 4...d5 equalises easily. But until your opponents start
playing that, enjoy it! What do they do, decline and push past with
4...d3 I suppose?"

Alan: "No, they do decline, but they let me play 4.
cxd4, when I get a pawn roller!"

Dave: "Go for it, then!"

Fred: "Isn't there an appalling lot to remember in
all these openings?"

Dave: "Well, you've got to learn how to play open
stuff and tactics if you are going to improve. You can play one of
the closed 'System' openings to keep
your book learning down (and maybe study tactics at home), but
there's nothing like getting stuck in to improve. There isn't
really that much to learn, and I don't think your opponents will
know it any better than you - look at how Alan's opponent's are
reacting, they not only don't know the Goring Gambit, they don't
seem to be playing according to any sort of logic in the opening at
all. I'm not insisting you play open games - if you are happy
playing what you do now at the level you do now, you have no
problems!"

But I also suspect that the main reasons that players don't play
open games is, not boredom with the same old positions, but fear of
losing, or too many painful tactical oversights. Instead of getting
good enough at tactics to live and thrive among open games, some
players prefer to play closed games without an immediate clash of
forces so that fewer Loose Pieces Drop Off. It can happen, even to
the best of us...

I might be wrong, but I think this is half of what all
these A00 and D00 openings are about: playing a stereotyped closed
setup so that we get through the first 10 moves (a) without
dropping any pieces, and (b) without having to think!

And, if your 'system' opening doesn't go according to
plan, you may be in one of those stodgy positions where the
plaintive cry goes up "I don't know what to do here".

Alan: "I like the King's Indian Attack as a
system".

Dave: "So do I! The thing is about the KIA is that
you can play it with more than one idea in mind, and it's not easy
for Black to cut across your plans because you aren't committed to
one plan. I'll come back to this later."

Whatever minor players should be playing, I guess it's not closed
openings.

Also, I'm not right impressed with anyone in the club,
let alone players in the intermediate, playing hypermodern systems
unless it's one you can interpret in a fairly direct King's-side
attack sort of way, like the Botvinnik system or King's Indian
Attack.

I can see a role for the semi-open systems at club level,
they are unbalanced and often exciting.

There's no arguing with results... as long as you are happy with
your results. There's clearly a reinforcement here for getting your
act together as Black against these unusual openings. We'll lay on
a repeat of "Beating the Anti-Indians" towards
this end.

Alan: "Surely it's better to play something you
half-know than something you don't know at all - particularly if
your opponent doesn't know it!"

Dave: "Yes, indeed - a player with a plan will always
beat a player without one, particularly if you know some of the
variations. But I fear in D00 openings the plan will go astray
because the plan is too simple, and in A00 it will go astray
because the positions are too complex."

I wouldn't stake much on a sample of 13 games, but it's clear it's
nothing special.

Ray: "I used to play the Stonewall but used to get
a lot of draws."

Dave: "I can well believe that. The Stonewall is a
one-idea opening (playing for a clockwork King's-side attack with
pressure on h7 from a Bishop on d3) and if your opponents see it
coming they can avoid this by 3...Bf5 or
3...g6."

Ray: "Yes, that's what happened. You then get a
blocked position which neither side is going to enjoy much, and
things often get bogged down and drawish. If you are prepared to
think a bit in the opening, I still think the Colle (D04) is
playable, because you still get an attack of sorts against
3...g6, and after 3...Bf5 you can
switch plans with 4.c4 and 5.Qb3.
White has pressure on b7 and can open the c-file."

Dave: "That's the type of flexibility I'd expect to
see in the Major; unfortunately in the Minor you are more likely to
get a clockwork reaction like 3...Bf5 4. Bd3 Bxd3 5.
Qxd3, which is usually a big yawn (because neither player
realises they can open a file)."

The Open Sicilian is obviously critical and a bit scary, but surely
the best way to play for a win as White. Tal used to say that he
preferred meeting 1.e4 c5 than 1.e4 e5 because it was easier to get
an open game; Karpov has also commented that there is no need to
gambit a Pawn against the Sicilian because white gets an attack
anyway! So, there's no need to play a gambit.

Also, the GMs usually reckon the Morra is a nice free
Pawn, and the best way to play for a win as Black. So why decline
anyway? I guess this has a lot to do with club players:

a. being frightened of their opponent's book
knowledge (justifiably or not), and/or

b. being frightened of being
attacked

a. being frightened of their opponent's book
knowledge (justifiably or not)

I do see a lot of gambits declined at club level -
remember what Alan was saying about the Goring. Sometimes I hear
people say they declined "on principle". There is
no principle that says "decline free Pawns". In
fact, there is a principle that says always take a central
Pawn if it is offered. The thing is,
don't try and hang on to it, let your opponent
waste time trying to get it back - or give it back yourself with an
early ...d5 to get on with your own development.

Play the strongest moves you can,
regardless of what you think your opponent knows. (After all, they
might know how to refute your second-rate choice as well...)

Despite all this, Blacks are being rewarded for
declining! However, this might have something to do with the small
numbers we are looking at here, or maybe which players are doing
the declining. It does suggest, however, that you are getting a
less open game by playing a gambit instead of the Open Sicilian,
because Blacks are being panicked into declining! This may be true
for other gambits as well.

b. being frightened of being
attacked

I think we need to brush up a bit on attack and
defence.

You mustn't ignore genuine threats, but don't be panicked
or distracted by them - especially when faced with a King's-side
attack [when you must pursue your own attack with extra
vigour.].

Take nothing for granted. Don't fret needlessly - analyse
and find out if there is a win for your opponent. I often say, "Oh,
Black's only going to threaten mate", by which I mean, the best
they can achieve is a one move threat that can be easily contained.
When they make that threat, you do need to react, but don't worry
needlessly; carry on with your own plans. There are some
"clockwork" attacks (like the h-file assault against the
fianchettoed King, or the King's Indian Attack) that will
eventually produce checkmate if left alone, but usually the best
recipe is to counterattack, even if you do have to stop from time
to time to counter a mating threat.

In particular, don't panic and refuse sacrificed material
that you could have for free. Don't decline "on principle". This is
declining from fear, not knowledge. Play the strongest move, which
may well be to take the material and make your opponent prove their
judgement was correct.

Neither be over-impressed by your own threats. An attack
by one piece on another is meaningless in itself - it may distract
an important defender. Equally, don't assume that a stock
combination or sacrifice works for you in the position you have
today - small differences can make it fail. Don't hope vainly -
analyse and find out.

Alan: "But the other reason people like to play
cautiously is if they are playing for a team. If you do lose in 15
moves you feel you've let your team down.".

Dave: "You might be right, but remember these
statistics are from tournaments where people are playing on their
own behalf, not for a team. Maybe there is an argument for trying
to hold the margin of the draw when playing for a team - after all,
Reti cautions us that we " may not win as many games at first". But
I think there is also an argument for having fun - and some of the
closed 'system' openings look awfully stodgy. "Above all, to
yourself be true"!"